SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has sought a response from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, on concerns raised over proposed industrial development in an alleged flood-zone area, including a ₹104.02-crore Plug-and-Play Industrial Park planned at Nowgam.
The direction was issued by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajnesh Oswal while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Environmental Policy Group (EPG) and connected matters.
The bench was considering an affidavit filed by the petitioner on August 27, 2026. In its order dated September 15, the court observed that the affidavit raised “certain critical issues”, including industrialisation in a flood-zone area, which required an immediate response from the Divisional Commissioner.
The court directed that a reply be filed within one week and listed the matter for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
According to the affidavit, the proposed industrial park is planned over about 50 acres at Nowgam. The petitioner has contended that the site falls within the Pantha Chowk–Nowgam stretch of the Srinagar Bypass, an area which, it claims, was excluded from development under the Srinagar Master Plan-2035.
The affidavit cites State Administrative Council Decision No. 40/5/2019 dated February 13, 2019, approving the Srinagar Master Plan-2035, and claims that the area was designated as a flood-absorption basin where development and construction activities were not to be permitted.
The petitioner has argued that the issue extends beyond environmental clearance requirements and raises questions about the compatibility of the proposed project with existing planning restrictions.
Among other reliefs, the petitioner has sought maintenance of status quo at the proposed site, disclosure of the project’s cadastral boundaries in relation to the alleged protected zone, and an independent hydrological assessment of the area’s flood-storage and flood-conveyance functions.
The petitioner has also requested that an alternative location be identified if the site’s protected status is established.
The court, however, has not expressed any view on the merits of the allegations or the legality of the proposed project. Its order is limited to seeking a response from the Divisional Commissioner on the issues raised in the affidavit.
The government’s response had not been placed on record at the time of the hearing.
